a ten thousand foot view of the repository landscape

Library Stewardship and the Evolving Scholarly Record

25th Anniversary Conference of the National Repository Library, 21-22 May 2015

Kuopio, Finland

Constance Malpas, OCLC Research

NRL, 1990

CRL, 1949

UC NRLF, 1982

ReCAP, 2000

CTLES, 1994

1980 1990 2000 201019701960 ‘50

Mo I Rana, 1

989

CARM, 1997

Metadata guidelines, 2012

2020 2030 2040

Institution scale

infrastructure

Group scale infrastructure

Coordinated operations

Harvard Depository,

1986

WEST, 2010

HathiTrust Shared Prin

t, 2015

CBUC GEPA,2008

Growth of Print Repository & Shared Print Infrastructure

25 years EAST, 2016

RLUK?UKB?

UKRR, 2007

BL Bosto

n Spa, 1961

Evolving scholarly record

Collection directions

Framing the Scholarly Record …

OCLC Research, 2014Figure: Evolving Scholarly Record framework.

OCLC Research, 2014Figure: Evolving Scholarly Record framework, publishing venues.

Fabric of Scientific Practice, Scholarly Communication

Scholarly record is evolving Increasing volume of content Increasing diversity, complexity of content Increasing diffusion, distribution of custodial responsibilityof

Stewardship models are evolving Greater attention to system-wide context Increasing specialization, formal division of labor Deepening reliance on resource sharing networks

Parallel Trends

Interdependent repository infrastructure: print, digital, open, commercial

Collections as a service

Collection directions

Owned

Catalog

Available

LibGuides, etc

Licensed

KB/Discovery

Global

Google, ResearchGate, etc …

Separation of discovery & collection:• Focus shifts from owned

to facilitated (available)• Focus shifts from

collection to other services (creation, …)

• System-wide thinking becomes stronger.

OCLC Research, 2015.Figure: Discoverability redefines collection boundaries.

The ‘owned’ collection

The ‘facilitated’ collection

The ‘licensed’ collection

The ‘borrowed’ collection

• Pointing people at Google Scholar• Including freely available e-books

in the catalog• Creating resource guides for web

resources

• Purchased and physically stored

A collections spectrum

The ‘demand-driven’ collection

The ‘shared print’ collection

OCLC Research, 2015.Figure: A collections spectrum.

Shared PrintCollection directions

11

Shared Print

• ‘Right-scaling’ management of print resources, shift to above-the-institution strategies

• Opportunity costs of maintaining institution-scale operations are high

• Early efforts focused on journals (low risk, high return); attention shifting to monographs

• Goal: increase operational efficiencies for managing print, enable strategic redirection of library resources

A

In few collections

In many collections

Licensed

Purchased

Outside, inOCLC Collections Grid

Distinctive

Library as brokerMaximize efficiency

Then

Low Stewardship

High Stewardship

Inside, out

Library as providerMaximize discoverability

Now Figure: OCLC Collections Grid, shift in emphasis. OCLC Research, 2014.

Core

In few collections

In many collections

A

Licensed

Purchased

Shared printCommercial repositoriesMaximize efficiency

OCLC Collections Grid

Distinctive

Low Stewardship

High Stewardship

Core

Inside, out

Institutional repositoriesMaximize discoverability

Figure: OCLC Collections Grid, shift in emphasis. OCLC Research, 2015.

Demand-driven acquisitions

Outside, in

Workflow support

Collection Directions

Then: Value relates to depth and breadth of local collection.

Now: Value relates to system-wide curation of and access to print collections – ‘right-scaling’.

14

Decision support throughshared data.

Right-scaling stewardship

Collection directions

North American print book resource: 45.7 million distinct publications 889.5 million total library holdings

Figure: North American Regional Print Book Collections. OCLC Research, 2013.

Mega-regions & Shared Print Initiatives

OCLC Research, 2013

Orbis-Cascade

CIC

ASERL

SCELC

MSCS

WRLC

OCUL

GWLA

WEST

FLAREMany North American consortia are mobilizing

around ‘group-scale’ shared print programs Figure: North American Mega-regions and

shared print activity. OCLC Research, 2013.

COPPUL

ChiPitts

CIC-scale shared print program could preserve 58% of regional collection

SoCal

SCELC-scale shared print program could preserve 47% of regional collection

Char-lanta

ASERL-scale shared print program could preserve 67% of regional resource

Group scale

OCLC Research, 2013Figure: Regional impacts of consortial print stewardship. OCLC Research, 2014.

As of December 2014: 1.46 million titles held in US shared print repositories

+ ??? titlesin undisclosed shared print

collections

High concentrations in Maine, Florida and New York

Figure: Geographic concentration of shared print inventory . OCLC Research, 2015.

~3% of print book collection?~1% of print journal collection?

Beyond North AmericaIn 2015:• Examining collective print book

collection of 34 RLUK members to support shared print planning efforts

• Analyzing collective library holdings of 13 Dutch universities, exploring system-wide library characteristics

• Deepening our understanding of ‘systemness’ in different national contexts

Cohort: 33 university libraries + BLCollective collection: 23M titles 86% books, 5% serials 478 languages; English: 61%Avg. WorldCat holdings/title: 37Avg. RLUK holdings/title: 2

Avg. in-group duplication:

66%Avg. WorldCat duplication: 83%

Cohort: 13 university libraries + KBCollective collection: 13M titles 90% books, 4% serials 417 languages; English: 35%Avg. WorldCat holdings/title: 45Avg. UKB holdings/title: 2

Avg. in-group duplication: 63%Avg. WorldCat duplication: 77%

RLUK UKB

Opportunities for reciprocal RLUK / UKB archiving?

Group scale

Thiophene Guy “Ballroom dancing during the Belle Epoch. 1902” (flickr) CC BY-NC-SA. Original image from Library of Congress

Selection pressure

finding the right

partner(s) to

maximize success

HathiTrust

Multi-scalar strategies

HathiTrust

HathiTrust

Duke

RLUK

TRLNASERL

HathiTrust

UKRR

HathiTrust

HathiTrust

PiCarta

WhiteRose

Leeds

UKB

Utrecht

simultaneous participation in cooperative efforts operating at multiple scales ?

UC system

Figure: Multi-scalar library partnerships. OCLC Research, 2015.

UCLA

WEST

LERU?

Dan Morelle “Lefty” (flickr) CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

New demands on coordination capacity

• Increased need for system-awareness

• Growing dependence on data-driven decision support for group-scale operations

• More attention to performance metrics

https://www.ohiolink.edu/sites/ohiolink.edu/files/uploads/OhioLINK_Regional_Central_0.pdf

…regional impact

…return on (public) investment

…economies of scale

Coordination capacity

Facilitated collection

Key characteristics1. broader awareness of system-wide stewardship

context2. declarations of explicit commitments around

portions of local collection3. formal division of labor within cooperative

arrangements4. increased reliance on trusted networks for

reciprocal access Implications for libraries1. importance of multi-scalar partnerships grows2. cataloging, resource-sharing workflows re-engineered

to support collection-level behaviors3. local stewardship commitments aligned with

institutional priorities4. increased scrutiny of ROI for collaborative

partnerships

Consciously coordinated stewardship

http://www.oclc.org/research@ConstanceM

Stewardship of the Evolving Scholarly Record: From the Invisible Hand to Conscious CoordinationBy Brian Lavoie & Constance Malpas

[in press]

More information . . .